Datta Dayadhvam Damyata Shantih Shantih Shantih

Let’s Throw The Jews Under The Bus!

I need to start this post with a confession, because it might (partially) enlighten everyone–about me.

My father was adopted. One summer I was at his mother’s house for an afternoon and she took it upon herself to tell me about my natural birth grandparents. The tricky part is that what I remember her saying isn’t the actual truth. She either told me incorrect information OR I ‘misheard’ her. Either way, I left her house that weekend thinking I was half Jewish.

I laboured under that misunderstanding well into my twenties. After her death my father and his (both genetic and adopted) brother decided to find their birth family. Once we were up against a large group of people–all of whom swore they were of Welsh decent, some of whom were Presbyterian ministers–I realised I was wrong.

There went years of study into Judaica. There went my Hebrew lessons, the classes I had with a Rabbi in college. All of it.

Except for one thing. I remain stubbornly close to Judaism and Judaic causes. Even though I had no blood ties to the faith, I’m still enamoured of its traditions and practices. There’s a stubborn and elegant beauty about Judaism which no other religion can claim. Threads of bright meaning are woven into every action–small and large. The poetry inside even the most simple ritual can break your heart. It’s a religion worth dying for. And many have.

To this day I am fiercely protective of Judaism, even though I’ve stayed with my original Christian faith.

It angers me how much anti-Semetic anti-Judaic attitude is pervasive in the Christian church. I know what we believe and how we believe it fits historically into the Jewish religion.

That doesn’t mean we need to go around saying things that imply that the Jews are dullards who just haven’t cottoned on yet.

That’s what I took from large portions of this post over at Slarti’s place. He’s talking about having a Bar Mitzvah for his 13-year-old son. (How that would be accomplished without the boy being called to the front of the congregation to read a portion of Torah in perfect Hebrew I do not know.) I think, basically, he wants a coming-of-age ceremony and doesn’t like some of the others out there. Hey, I read Roots and I wouldn’t want my son to go through that particular right of passage. Of all of the male “today you are a man” ceremonies, the Judaic one is certainly the best. Possibly because it involves a test of wits and devotion–things I personally prize more than brawn and athleticism.

But Slarti, in his attempt to describe what he wants for his son does something I see over and over again in the Church.

OK, not a Bar Mitzvah, exactly; we aren’t Jewish, and a central tenet of our religion holds that he will not be a “Son of the Law” – he will instead one day be freed from the law. Yet, as with so many things, we can find the roots of “right” ways to do things in the Jewish religious traditions.

I told him several days ago at his blog that I found that startlingly anti-Semetic. He asked me to explain further so here we are.

[In reviewing this post in the context of his anger, I’m henceforth changing “anti-Semetic” to “anti-Judaic” as it is a more accurate descriptor. ]

It’s anti-Semetic anti-Judaic because it holds Judaism up as the lesser faith. The faith from which his son is “freed”. In fact, in so saying that his son will be “freed” from the Law, Slarti misinterprets (or omits entirely) Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

I’ve heard countless teachers in the Christian church make the same interpretation Slarti made. The assumption that we are “free” from the law. I maintain that if Jesus is the fulfillment of the law (as Christians believe) than we are doubly enmeshed in the law. Yes, there are observances which our belief in Jesus casts into a different meaning. That doesn’t meant that observance of the law or the rituals arising from the law are wrong or unnecessary.

And it doesn’t mean that Christianity can continually characterise Judaism as it’s half-witted younger brother who just doesn’t get the truth, man.

Obviously there are key differences between Christianity and Judaism which would give anyone pause. They are not the same religion at all; even though Christianity in its early days was a breakaway Jewish sect it certainly has enough miles on it to be fully separate at this point. But I still maintain that Judaism is a faith with true beauty and integrity and cannot be dismissed so lightly as though it were the worn-out husk of the fruit of Christianity.

Like this:

Related

30 Responses

I would only clarify to say “half-witted older brother” because I often get this feeling among Christians of “Oh my god, we’re so much smarter and more accomplished and we do this better and that better and I think Dad still likes him better” anxiety, like as long as there are Jews, Christians cannot be sure that God loves them best.

1) I do believe that we Christians, as a group, have abandoned too much of our Jewish heritage as Christianity has become a separate religion. Much of that is, I think, due to the disgraceful antisemitism that has pervaded Christianity, and which makes no sense in the context of Christianity.

2) The Apostle Paul talks a great deal about being freed from the law (see Romans 6:16 for example; there are probably better examples, but my Biblical scholarship is poor). Paul was a Pharisee, and as such certainly had a reverence for the law. I don’t think Paul meant to denigrate Judaism, just as I suspect that Slarti wasn’t attempting the same. Christ didn’t abolish the law, but his death and resurrection means that we do not depend upon the law for justification. Or something like that. Perhaps a better Christian theologian can see where I’m going and take it up from there. Father McKenzie? Bueller?

Anyway, I see your point, Kat. And I agree that it’s arrogant to think of Judaism as foolish or primitive. But I do think that your interpretation of Slarti’s post was overly sensitive. I’m not saying that’s uncalled for, again considering the heritage of antisemitism that most non-Semites have displayed throughout history. I just read it as pointing out a difference of philosophy, not a veiled claim of superiority.

There is a good discussion at Aunt B’s about understanding the weight of words, and usage thereof.

There are now two instances where someone who knows me as an entertainment writer, who might even be thinking of hiring me to write for one of the big guys (which is my lifelong dream, BTW), can look at references to me at my personal site and see my name tied to the term “anti-semite”.

This.is.not.cool.

I don’t care how the dictionary defines the word, the fact of the matter is that the common understanding of the word means that anyone reading it would think that I want to throw people into ovens.

Throwing such powerful words around like so much Mardi Gras candy is , well, I’m going to stop now. I’m so mad I could spit. I’ll come back when I’ve calmed down.

I’m sorry, Slarti, but YOU are responsible for what you put out there.

I get that you’re mad. But the fact of the matter is that -I- was mad when I read what you wrote. I responded in your comments and you asked for clarification. I waited A WEEK to respond. I was prayerful and careful in my response.

I get that your dream is to write for “the big boys”. Who blogs that doesn’t have that dream in one way or another? Honestly, everyone I know who still blogs now that it is no longer fashionable wants to get recognised as a writer.

That being said, we all go into this with that knowledge in the back of our heads. So everything we put up should be defensible. You think what you said wasn’t anti-Semetic. So defend that.

I don’t go for this “best defense is a good offense” strategy. Feel free to come back to it when you aren’t spitting mad any more and address it.

Well, I came back because upon reflection, my comment seemed unduly antagonistic. I didn’t intend for it to be, so let me clarify…

I read Slarti’s post last week, laughed a little at how…needy, perhaps, it was, but I did not see it as anti-semitic whatsoever.

When you, Kat, said “its a religion worth dying for, was it your intent to suggest that others are not? Could someone not secure enough in their Faith have determined that you implied that Christianity was somehow “less than”?

I have to grudgingly agree with Slarti here, though, that the term anti-Semite is way too harsh, and probably inaccurate. And, it seems, thrown around far too casually.

Christ didn’t abolish the law, but his death and resurrection means that we do not depend upon the law for justification.

Yes. I get that and that’s also what I believe. But time and again I see Christians of all stripes point to Judaism or the Jews as the villains or the benighted.

I may have been overly sensitive, but from where I sat I saw someone belittling one of the most important rites of Judaism. The Bar Mitzvah is more than a party. It’s a religious rite which is the culmination of years of study.
I
Throwing a mock Mitzvah is sort of like throwing an “I passed the Bar exam” party when you didn’t even go to law school. And then talking about it the way Slarti did in that post (and, indeed, the way I’ve heard other Christians talk about Jewish things) sounds like the religious equivalent of saying “and who needs stupid ol’ stuffy law school anyway?!”

Galatians 2 is the big section where Paul talks to the recently converted-from-Judaism Christians in Galatia. They were still believing that they would be saved through works. Paul was telling them that Christianity believes you will be saved through faith.

He (Paul) did reference Deuteronomy 27:26 when he said that those who were observant solely of the law were under a curse.
BUT then he said that Jesus took the curse upon himself. Reference, if you will, what Jesus said about being the FULFILLMENT of the law.

If you read the rest of Deuteronomy 27, you’ll see that the law referenced alongside the curse are still things we as Christians generally believe to be wrong or sinful.

There are curses upon those who:
1. Carve and worship idols
2. Dishonor their parents
3. Moves their neighbours’ boundary stones (being deceitful and theiving in business)
4. Leads the blind astray on the road (takes advantage of another’s disability for amusement or personal gain)
5. Withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow. (Acts without an attitude of mercy and charity.)
6. Sleeps with his father’s wife
7. Has sex with an animal
8. Practices any form of incest
9. Sleeps with his mother-in-law
10. Kills his neighbour in secret (murders). *Note that this doesn’t curse those who execute others under the death penalty, or kills another in battle. An important distinction.
11. Accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person.

So clearly, by Jesus taking on that final curse on our behalf we can rest easy should we sin by failing to constantly do what is right.

THAT IS DIFFERENT from “being free from the law”. Because if we were free from the law (instead of just being free from the negative consequences which befall those who don’t uphold the law) then we could murder and boff sheep to our heart’s content. That, by the way, was one of the heresies of the early church.

All that being said, I can accept that perhaps I should use the term Anti-Judaic instead of Anti-Semetic. A very observant Jewish friend has pointed out to me that there is a distinct difference in that the problem I see with Slarti’s writing is not toward the people but toward their religious beliefs.

When you, Kat, said “its a religion worth dying for, was it your intent to suggest that others are not? Could someone not secure enough in their Faith have determined that you implied that Christianity was somehow “less than”?

Well, I was just talking about Judaism. I believe both faiths are worth dying for, seeing as I have deep ties to both.

But personally I would think that whatever religion one practices should be worth dying for to that person. Otherwise is it worth your devout attentions?

And yes, I’m seeing what all are saying about anti-Semetic and I’m changing it to anti-Judaic on the advice now of three people.

Nevertheless I maintain in response to Slarti’s anger that he asked a question and I provided an answer.

It depends. If you believe that when an action is called “anti-semetic” or “racist” or “misogynist” it is an indictment of a person as being beyond redemption, then, yes, maybe calling Slarti’s desire to have a non-bar mitzvah bar mitzvah for his son anti-semetic does seem harsh and inaccurate. But if you believe that when an action is called “anti-semetic,” the person reporting on the action just means that the action is anti-semetic and that she would like the person doing the action to explain or change his behavior, then I don’t think it’s too harsh.

But I respect that that’s an enormous philosophical difference between us.

To get back to the obvious truth of the matter–no, you can’t have a non-Jewish bar mitzvah. You can’t make a ritual designed to do one thing do another. That’s basic magic 101. You need your own ritual designed specifically to focus you intent and produce the results you want.

Thank your for this post, Kat. When I mentioned to my husband your original comment at Slarti’s, he was pleasantly shocked; it is remarkably unusual for the more-or-less-Evangelical community around here to be aware of Judaism as a religion with its own history and content, rather than as a dead-end precursor to a different religion. It is even more rare for a member of that community to recognize that to take the name and form of Jewish practice, strip it of its meaning for Jews, and attach it as a label to any intrinsically Christian practice is a lie. And it’s a lie that claims that Judaism has no content, no meaning that Christians must respect. I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to be reminded by your words and actions that the practice of doing so isn’t something intrinsic in Christian beliefs but is simply a result of ignorance and miseducation.

Christians, listen up: when you mimic our practices while loudly proclaiming that what we mean by them is unimportant, you are not honoring Judaism; you are insulting it. You are not connecting to the heritage of your own religion; you are pretending that that heritage is something defined only by your present beliefs. Is it too strong to say that this attempt to turn a living religion into an empty shell that hasn’t developed in 2000 years is a way of trying to obliterate it? That’s not the same thing as trying to obliterate people, to be sure, but there sure is something you’re trying to wipe out of existence.

I also think that to suggest that antisemitism, misogyny, racism, or any other prejudice are all/extreme or nothing descriptors is to miss an important point about how prejudice works. Most racism isn’t expressed by lynching; lynching is only an extreme form of it. Most misogyny isn’t expressed by murdering women; most antisemitism isn’t expressed by attempted genocide. There’s also the racism that won’t live next to a person with different skin color or the sexism that indulges in “blond jokes.” Most folks are aware of prejudice as a spectrum of reactions, ideas, and behaviors, so let’s not pretend that Naziism is the only form of antisemitism out there; there’s also the kind in which Christians pat themselves on the back for not being Jews.

No one, at least that I can see in this thread, has made that suggestion, NM. What Slarti and I object to, (at least in part) is affixing a label that carries so much weight in the mind of the casual reader, or listener, that it both unfairly affects the person at whom it was pointed, and cheapens the term itself.

Often, the spectrum isn’t considered, because it isn’t available in context. It becomes a binary condition, and forces people into a defensive posture. The person who tells a blond joke and the person who denies basic human rights based on gender are frequently subject to the same label, and it is hurtful and usually unnecessary.

Slarti-
“There are now two instances where someone who knows me as an entertainment writer, who might even be thinking of hiring me to write for one of the big guys (which is my lifelong dream, BTW), can look at references to me at my personal site and see my name tied to the term “anti-semite”.

This.is.not.cool.”

It’s no less cool than this Jew inviting you and your wife out for coffee 3 different times and you not even having the manners to email back. I love irony, because this Jew could have made (and no doubt would have offered) a couple of calls and gotten you an interview with almost anyone you wanted in Nashville in the entertainment world, unless of course, you believed the multiple rumors floated around about me by some in the Nashville blogosphere, which makes it doubly ironic, since I’ve been the victim of vicious slander and libel and La Shon Hara (look it up) by Nashville bloggers while you’re worried about your reputation affecting a potential job.

Tell me, Slart, did you ever participate in the salacious, cruel, slanderous gossip about me, even though we’ve met? Even if you were just present, and didn’t speak up, you’re just as guilty.

Since you’ve never met me, I will assume you’re either anti-semitic, and/or believed the rumors about me; the very things you’re worried about.

As always, irony and karma.

It’s also my experience that the Nashville blogosphere doesn’t say “I’m sorry” and do something to correct the damage they’ve caused, even after they’ve been proven wrong.

Good luck, Slart. I’m known for helping people, and had you returned any of my emails asking you and yours to go to coffee, no doubt I would have made some calls for you when you told me of your desires.

Thank G-d that G-d watches out for fools and children, which to some degree I am both. That, and a Jew. (And yes, my resume is very real and I really have done everything I’ve said I’ve done and anyone who says differently is a liar)

BTW, Kat made several good points in her piece. “Sonya Douglas,” so they didn’t spell “Semitic” correctly. I assure you these people are anything but “dummies.”

Slart–I will assume you are a good person with bad manners. Speaking just for myself, when something like this happens to me, I try to understand the lesson(s) I’m supposed to learn from it. It might be something for you to think about.

From a Jew who could have gotten you interviews at most any entertainment magazine. Sharon

You know, I often hear people say that Simon on American Idol is too mean to the contestants. My response is always simply “these folks are wanting to be famous, if they make it do you think the tabloids will be kinder to them?”

Kat has said nothing even remotely libelous, and the context of her post I think makes it clear what precisely she was talking about. I don’t think even the most overly-dramatic person could come away from reading this thinking you wanted to “throw people into ovens.”

I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re planning on writing for the “big boys” it might pay to be more careful about what you’re writing, because when you have millions of eyes reading, you’ll end up facing a lot more criticism and not all of it will be as fair and reasoned as Kat’s.

It’s an interesting discussion. Having read Slarti’s post, I don’t see it as anti-Judaic, even, but that’s me. Perhaps a little condescending towards Judaism, but I’m not even sure I see that.

Baptism is a ritual taken from Judaism into Christianity, with a change in meaning. It doesn’t mean that, just because I was baptized as a Christian, that I am mocking those who are baptized as proselytes into Judaism. Or does it? I don’t think so. It’s just different.

Kat, I do agree with you in your analysis of what being freed from the law means to Christians. But however it plays out, Paul does speak of being freed from the law. I would think your critiques of Slarti would apply to Paul as well. Many Christians have twisted Scripture, including Paul’s epistles, to justify antisemitism. That doesn’t mean Paul was wrong.

Baptism is a ritual taken from Judaism into Christianity, with a change in meaning.

Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no ritual in Judaism called “baptism” (or called any Hebrew variant of it), and there’s no ritual in Judaism that has a place in the spiritual life-cycle analogous to baptism, in either its infant or adult form. There are rituals in Judaism (and in the other religions practiced in Judaea in the time of Jesus) that emphasize physical and/or spiritual cleansing/renewal through the use of water, and I suppose you could say that Christians took that idea and used it. But they didn’t, say, take the observance of mikvah after niddah, keep the name, and repurpose it.

nm – Converts to Judaism, at least in the time of Jesus, were required to be immersed in a mikvah, were they not? I guess there is some dispute as to how connected this is to Christian baptism, but the idea of being immersed as a sign of repentance and conversion was not a completely new idea. John the Baptist was a Jew, not a Christian. Certainly the ritual of mikvah is a lot broader than the ritual of Christian baptism, as the latter is generally held to be required only once, and for one specific purpose. But much Christian scholarship on baptism rests on understanding Christian baptism to have roots in mikvah for proselytes converting to Judaism. There’s also the connection with circumcision, as Christian baptism is analogous to circumcision as a sign of the Covenant with God, though admittedly a less visible (and painful) sign.

Is that the same thing as wanting the Christian equivalent of a Bar Mitzvah? Probably not. I do think that those of us who aren’t Jews fall short in coming-of-age rituals in our culture. I also believe that Christianity would be better served to hearken to our roots in Judaism, and we would then be closer to being the community that Jesus intended us to be. Is that condescending or anti-Judaic? I sure hope not, because that isn’t my intention.

Adam, I’m not disputing that there are Jewish roots to a lot of Christian rituals. You have taken things, changed them around, reinterpreted them, made them your own, and given them your own names. That’s all cool; it’s generally what religions do as they influence each other (which they are always doing). There’s nothing wrong in saying “there are Jewish roots to Christian baptism”* but there’s a big mistake in saying “baptism is a Jewish ritual and in being baptized as a Christian I am participating in Jewish practice.” Those are two very different claims; the former respects the content, meaning, significance of two related but different practices in two religions and the latter doesn’t. (And the former is correct, while the latter isn’t.) And I think the change of name is crucially significant; Christians don’t call baptism mikvah, they call it baptism.

That’s really different from calling something that isn’t Jewish
practice by the name of a Jewish practice and claiming to be following Jewish practice while ignoring what Jewish practice actually is and means.

*I think you’ll find that most Jews recognize that the connection between a baptismal font (or whatever it is that Protestants use — sorry, I’m not sure about the name) and a mikvah is clear, but I’d argue that circumcision is something quite different.

Well, I think part of my confusion is that I’ve often heard immersion in a mikvah by converts to Judaism referred to as “proselyte baptism.” Admittedly, this usage comes from Christian authors. Seeing as “baptism” is derived from the Greek word for immersion & performing ablutions, I didn’t of it as much of a name change as a translation. But I do see the difference.

Since I’m not very enlightened, would John’s baptism (immersion, ablution) of people in the Jordan have been seen as the same thing as immersion in a mikvah? My understanding of the term mikvah is that it refers more to the collection of water itself than the act, but obviously my knowledge is limited.

Anyway, I’m sorry to have taken this discussion off-track. BTW, nm, “font” is also the preferred designation for a lot of Protestants, though some prefer “baptistry” when describing a font big enough for immersion or submersion. There’s enough dispute amongst Protestants about how and when baptism should be performed to write volumes about. That’s part of why I think Christians need to understand more about the practice of baptism in Christ’s day (and it’s roots in the proselyte immersion/ablution in the mikvah).

I’m not an expert on the laws of mikvah in Second Temple times, so I don’t know the answer to your question.

Heh. I just went to do a quick google on it, and the reason I know nothing about it is that mikvaot seem (from archaeological evidence) to have been an invention of the last half of that period (i.e. they first show up around 100 BCE). They varied widely in form (including, evidently, the ability to use rainwater, which is one of the requirements today) and there’s no discussion of them in any texts until the Talmudic period (i.e. after 200 CE). So I’m thinking that there wasn’t a single understanding of their form or of their function. Possibly (this is my own speculation here, based on some quick on-line reading) most of the things they’re used for started to take on ritual importance only during that same span of time; there are very few Biblical requirements for bathing in or with live water, and I suppose that streams or rivers filled those functions earlier.

I’m wondering, now, given the period mikvaot start to show up, and throwing in the undeniably Greek phrase “proselyte baptism,” whether that’s when immersion became important in Judaean religions generally for the first time, as a result of Hellenistic influence. (Eleusinian Mysteries, Magna Mater, etc.) Because, while you view John baptising people as a variant on a common Jewish practice connected to conversion, it wasn’t all that common as part of conversiopn. The classic Biblical account of conversion to Judaism, the story of Ruth, saw conversion taking place by a simple declaration of adherence to a people and a form of worship. No immersion, or even bathing, was involved.

I just heard from Kat, who just contacted me from her iPod. She says, “Very sick. Can’t sit at desk or write. Please also add that xtian bptsm a ritual decendant of contemporaneous Mithras blood rites.”

So now I’m both feeling really awful for you, Kat, and worried about how you’re doing, and at the same time feeling all gleeful about the marvels of modern technology. Plus, there’s more input about the roots of Christian baptism for Adam. I thought Mithraic purification rituals involved fire — I didn’t know about the blood part.

[You know, when I was a kid I used to wonder how it felt to be my grandmother (for some reason, I wondered this about one of my grandmothers and not about any of my other grandparents, though she wasn’t even the oldest of them) and to have lived through the invention and wide adoption of travel by car and airplane. And now, with respect to computers and all their offshoots, I know — it feels absolutely ordinary, and one adopts all this new stuff as it becomes available, and uses it without thinking about it, but all of a sudden one sits back and marvels.]
/digression

For those of you who are keen to fight genuine anti semitism, if I might humbly suggest: one of the biggest problems for Jews at present is when **some** evangelical Christians go round posing as ‘messianic jews’.

They are literally not Jews – they are Christians. But they prey on naive young Jews, and Christians, and claim that they are the ‘real jews, as we worship jesus’.

They then accuse those of us that are Jewish, of being ‘liars’.

This is happening in internet forums around the world and in America, and the UK, Messianic groups are causing massive problems for Jews and also tension between Jews and our Christian friends.

If the only way one can regard a thing as “that which came before” is willfully to ignore the reality of what “that which came before” has become, then there’s a problem. Since contemporary Judaism is not in any way “that which came before” Christianity.

Many don’t think about the difference between contemporary Judaism and Judaism as “that which came before;” that which is the foundation layed which allowed Christianity. To many Christians, their thoughts of Judaism are limited to the time period which happened before their own history started. It’s a self-absorption which leads to the failure to see other things thriving and growing and evolving around them.

But is that anti-semitism? I don’t think it is. There is no active intention to be disrespectful or to devalue; it’s just ignorance. Not saying ignorance can’t lead to baaaad things!

Writers’ Advice

"Read, read, read. Read everything -- trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master. Read! You'll absorb it.
Then write. If it's good, you'll find out. If it's not, throw it out of the window."
— William Faulkner